Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 11:46 pm
Mormons are free to present their case.
Why should they have to? Why can't they present the same evidence you've presented to support their book along with yours? That's what Christians claim to do with the Tanakh.
If they believe the BoM is authoritative, then the burden is on them to support it. I do believe the Bible is authoritative, so I've been presenting my arguments and evidence to support it. Anyone who claims their religious book is authoritative should also do likewise.
Moses allows for more than that and never says anything about it being for their "hardness of heart". On the contrary, Moses repeatedly declares that everything in the law is to be kept, not turning to the right or to the left, in order "to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul". So Jesus's "hardness of heart" statement makes Moses out to be a deceiver, which isn't something the Jewish Messiah would do.
Hardness of heart was used by Moses as well, so even that phrase was not novel by Jesus. But, no, Jesus was not making out Moses to be a deceiver.
I base my argument on Deuteronomy 4:2. What part of the Torah do you base your rebuttal on?
I base it on all of the Bible. You can't just take a passage and apply a hyperliteral interpretation of it and make it mean what you want it to say. The mere fact there are other books in the Bible besides the Torah refutes your argument, since obviously other words have been added to the Torah. And as I've also pointed out, not even the Jews have this interpretation that you do. So, really, it's only your own interpretation.
Jesus is not saying that oath-taking is evil. He is saying that oath-taking is not necessary. If you say you will do something, then do it. If you say you won't do something, then don't do it. What is evil is saying, "Yes, I said I would do it, but since I didn't swear I'd do it, then I'm not bound to do it."
If he isn't saying that it's evil, why does the text use the word "πονηρός" for what he says?
I already explained it. It means let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. If your yes means no or your no means yes, then that's evil.
[Mat 5:37 KJV] 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (πονηροῦ).
Yes, that passage is correct. But I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting everything in the Bible is a doctrinal statement?
2 Timothy 3:16 states that "all scripture" is "profitable for doctrine", which indicates that all scripture has a doctrinal application related to whatever a particular passage is about.
No, it doesn't mean everything in the Bible is a doctrinal statement or even have a doctrinal application. There are no Christians who believe this, so this would be a straw man argument.
In 2 Tim 3:16, the word doctrine is didaskalia. It means "teaching, instruction, doctrine, precepts".
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
Here are other translations of that verse:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth, convicting of sin, correcting faults and training in right living;
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteous
All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
What's important is that Jesus's "virginal" conception was supposed to be a sign, but it wasn't a sign because his conception wasn't observable, so even Matthew's take on Isaiah 7:14 doesn't apply to Jesus.
And that other matter has been addressed by pointing out not only shortcomings in the appearance of the Turin cloth image itself, but also textual disqualifiers which show that even a genuine image couldn't be that of the Jesus of the Christian Bible.
We're argued at length about these already. I'll let readers assess by what has already been posted.